5 ms·

Modern football through the lens of René Girard

59 points by Niklas96 4y ago

mrxd 4y ago
I suspect that Girard’s ideas are a touch more sophisticated than “people are sheep”. Unfortunately if you see his name in a headline, that’s usually all that’s being said.
- Niklas96 4y ago
  What do you mean?
- dc-programmer 4y ago
  I see his name as a heuristic for Thiel adjacent content, which is useful for deciding which links to skip
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Thiel is an independent thinker and it is much needed in a rather strange and extremely conformist society. He is unpopular by definition.
    - s5300 4y ago
      - systemvoltage 4y ago
        Naive responses like this either do not understand him or listens to mainstream opinion too much. It is neither intellectual, nor inquisitive. I disagree with him very much but there is no doubt he is an independent thinker. Here is a more charitable criticism of Thiel: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right-where-peter-thiel-is-placing-his-biggest-bets https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right...
    - dc-programmer 4y ago
      I don’t care for his beliefs at all but that is not what my petty protest is about. He is an incarnation in the flesh of state corporatism and a anti-democracy activist. That I can not stomach
      - systemvoltage 4y ago
        > He is an incarnation in the flesh of state corporatism and a anti-democracy activist. That I can not stomach I couldn't see a shred of this. Can you point to a specific example that influenced your stance? (direct source). Thiel has a combination of liberal, liberatarian and conservative views. He strongly opposes authoritarianism of any kind and promotes individualism. From this clip, he describes himself as an individualist which is literally the opposite of any authoritarian/collectivist society: https://youtu.be/YK3Tzx-S264?t=54 https://youtu.be/YK3Tzx-S264?t=54 And him directly addressing Democracy which your stance seems uninformed: > In a Democracy, if 51% of population believes then it is better, there is a certain bias towards majoritarianism, if you have 70% of the population that believes in something, then it is even more true. But if you go from 51% to 70% to 99%, then you've gone from Democracy to North Korea. At what point do we go from wisdom of crowds to madness of crowds? https://youtu.be/YK3Tzx-S264?t=314 https://youtu.be/YK3Tzx-S264?t=314
        dc-programmer 4y ago
        https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right-where-peter-thiel-is-placing-his-biggest-bets/amp https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right...
        systemvoltage 4y ago
        Try again?
        dc-programmer 4y ago
        I do not feel obligated to argue with you. If you hold someone in esteem who questioned female suffrage due to its detrimental effects to libertarianism we will never see eye to eye.
  - nagestri 4y ago
    Well that is just foolish. I am an atheist but I find Catholic Bishop Robert Barron on Girard fascinating and great at explaining Girard. Girard is one of the great theologians and a historic figure. Thiel is not a historical figure.
    - dc-programmer 4y ago
      I actually read The Scapegoat and liked it. I’m not sure he could convince me of his thesis due to the unfalsifiable nature of his arguments; but he is an interesting thinker. However, due to the high probability that blog-like content mentioning Girard shares Thiel’s ethos, I am obliged to pass on principal.
- twayt 4y ago
  That "people are sheep "is merely the first idea that his thinking is based off of. The rest of it is about the mechanics that follow. If you actually read the article you can see that there's a discussion of those ideas beyond merely "people are sheep".
conradfr 4y ago
I was amazed that somebody cared about the thought of René Girard the ex-player and soccer coach. That was at this moment I realized I was not as cultured as I thought I was.
- rtsil 4y ago
  Particularly since that Girard is not particularly known for his modern, innovative and daring ideas.
AlbertCory 4y ago
> Girard argues that we don’t develop our own desires but want what others seem to want. Garbage. I might feel bad that I haven't read Girard, except that the author admits he hasn't either. > Think about it: rituals before, during, and after the game; group singing; deep emotional involvement; the use of symbols to show that you are part of a certain group. These are all religious aspects. Every club has legendary players; heroic figures, shaped by immortal memories, admired by everyone at the club. Sorry, Niklas. I've been to Wrigley Field when the Cubs win and everyone sings "Go, Cubs, Go." It's different in America, and by the way, you're welcome to wear the visiting team's baseball cap to a game, too. We know it's just a game. In the video [1], Girard says: I think desire usually is born out of the contemplation of someone else who is desiring and who designates to you the object he is desiring as desirable. Sorry, this is barely even a half-truth. Middle schoolers are walking down the street not looking where they're going because they're staring at their smartphones, and that's where they get desire. If they grow up, they learn to think for themselves. More from the video: Peter Robinson [narrator]: Serpent, Eve and apple. Rene Girard: Serpent in the mimetic theory of desire is a symbol, an image, of the mediator. In other words, the one who directs the subject towards the bad desire. There are churches who know what they are talking about much better than most people think. Know that example is the key to bad as well as good behavior, and this is nothing but what I call mimetic desire. ... and this is why people like to make fun of French intellectuals.
- Mulpze15 4y ago
  >It's different in America Yes. Not sure how it makes his argument weaker. There is a weak sense of community in US sports fans, where it is well understood that sports teams are first and foremost a commercial enterprise. It is perceived differently in Europe where fans are attached to the team fo r other reasons and want to limit the commercial impact in the sport, probably for some of the reasons explained by the author.
- Niklas96 4y ago
  > Girard argues that we don’t develop our own desires but want what others seem to want. What's your point here? > Think about it: rituals before, during, and after the game; group singing; deep emotional involvement; the use of symbols to show that you are part of a certain group. These are all religious aspects. Every club has legendary players; heroic figures, shaped by immortal memories, admired by everyone at the club. Sorry, Niklas. I've been to Wrigley Field when the Cubs win and everyone sings "Go, Cubs, Go." It's different in America, and by the way, you're welcome to wear the visiting team's baseball cap to a game, too. We know it's just a game. I see your point. I think you have to take into account what football means for people and that is very different in Europe compared to America. In America, I would argue, it's much more about entertainment. The development in Europe is similar but it didn't use to be that way. Back in the days, these were local clubs, founded by local people who only lived for these clubs. Wright Thompson's piece explains that much better than I could: https://www.espn.com/espn/insider/insider/story/_/id/32218044/super-league-rage-ronaldo-mania-fight-soul-manchester-united https://www.espn.com/espn/insider/insider/story/_/id/3221804... > Sorry, this is barely even a half-truth. Middle schoolers are walking down the street not looking where they're going because they're staring at their smartphones, and that's where they get desire. If they grow up, they learn to think for themselves. That's very true. They stare at their smartphones, see other people and get their desires. It might be true that their beliefs system changes when they grow up and that they think for themselves more often. The tendency to desire what other people want, however, doesn't necessarily change. The desires might differ, maybe also the extent, but I don't believe that the mechanism itself evaporates.
Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
Modern football is the same as old 60s football: Catenaccio wins you matches and trophies with the minimum effort and minimal financial expense for the board. "two lines of 5 will always be very hard to penetrate, in prehistoric times, in the middle ages and today" - Josèp Guardiola -
- sk0g 4y ago
  Is it? One tactical change I've realised recently is the handoff of goalscoring responsibilities to wide players. This seems driven by defenders getting really good at both organising and one on one situations. The new goalscorers are the players that cut into the space between the wide and central defenders. Regarding two lines of 5, yes it will be hard to break down. Yet if you don't attack much, you have to defend non-stop. Hard is not impossible, so the numbers start stacking up against you, unless you have _very_ good attacking players the opposition has to fear (and avoid overcommitting themselves in attack). More than anything, modern football is becoming very programmed. You can see constant triggers for presses, passes, blind switches, and rehearsed team-wide runs from simple passages of play. Coaches seem like programmers for the worst computer of them all - humans.

59 points by Niklas96 4y ago

mrxd 4y ago

I suspect that Girard’s ideas are a touch more sophisticated than “people are sheep”. Unfortunately if you see his name in a headline, that’s usually all that’s being said.

Niklas96 4y ago
What do you mean?
dc-programmer 4y ago
I see his name as a heuristic for Thiel adjacent content, which is useful for deciding which links to skip
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Thiel is an independent thinker and it is much needed in a rather strange and extremely conformist society. He is unpopular by definition.
  - s5300 4y ago
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      Naive responses like this either do not understand him or listens to mainstream opinion too much. It is neither intellectual, nor inquisitive. I disagree with him very much but there is no doubt he is an independent thinker. Here is a more charitable criticism of Thiel: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right-where-peter-thiel-is-placing-his-biggest-bets https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right...
  - dc-programmer 4y ago
    I don’t care for his beliefs at all but that is not what my petty protest is about. He is an incarnation in the flesh of state corporatism and a anti-democracy activist. That I can not stomach
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      > He is an incarnation in the flesh of state corporatism and a anti-democracy activist. That I can not stomach I couldn't see a shred of this. Can you point to a specific example that influenced your stance? (direct source). Thiel has a combination of liberal, liberatarian and conservative views. He strongly opposes authoritarianism of any kind and promotes individualism. From this clip, he describes himself as an individualist which is literally the opposite of any authoritarian/collectivist society: https://youtu.be/YK3Tzx-S264?t=54 https://youtu.be/YK3Tzx-S264?t=54 And him directly addressing Democracy which your stance seems uninformed: > In a Democracy, if 51% of population believes then it is better, there is a certain bias towards majoritarianism, if you have 70% of the population that believes in something, then it is even more true. But if you go from 51% to 70% to 99%, then you've gone from Democracy to North Korea. At what point do we go from wisdom of crowds to madness of crowds? https://youtu.be/YK3Tzx-S264?t=314 https://youtu.be/YK3Tzx-S264?t=314
      - dc-programmer 4y ago
        https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right-where-peter-thiel-is-placing-his-biggest-bets/amp https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right...
        systemvoltage 4y ago
        Try again?
        dc-programmer 4y ago
        I do not feel obligated to argue with you. If you hold someone in esteem who questioned female suffrage due to its detrimental effects to libertarianism we will never see eye to eye.
- nagestri 4y ago
  Well that is just foolish. I am an atheist but I find Catholic Bishop Robert Barron on Girard fascinating and great at explaining Girard. Girard is one of the great theologians and a historic figure. Thiel is not a historical figure.
  - dc-programmer 4y ago
    I actually read The Scapegoat and liked it. I’m not sure he could convince me of his thesis due to the unfalsifiable nature of his arguments; but he is an interesting thinker. However, due to the high probability that blog-like content mentioning Girard shares Thiel’s ethos, I am obliged to pass on principal.
twayt 4y ago
That "people are sheep "is merely the first idea that his thinking is based off of. The rest of it is about the mechanics that follow. If you actually read the article you can see that there's a discussion of those ideas beyond merely "people are sheep".

conradfr 4y ago

I was amazed that somebody cared about the thought of René Girard the ex-player and soccer coach. That was at this moment I realized I was not as cultured as I thought I was.

rtsil 4y ago
Particularly since that Girard is not particularly known for his modern, innovative and daring ideas.

AlbertCory 4y ago

> Girard argues that we don’t develop our own desires but want what others seem to want. Garbage. I might feel bad that I haven't read Girard, except that the author admits he hasn't either. > Think about it: rituals before, during, and after the game; group singing; deep emotional involvement; the use of symbols to show that you are part of a certain group. These are all religious aspects. Every club has legendary players; heroic figures, shaped by immortal memories, admired by everyone at the club. Sorry, Niklas. I've been to Wrigley Field when the Cubs win and everyone sings "Go, Cubs, Go." It's different in America, and by the way, you're welcome to wear the visiting team's baseball cap to a game, too. We know it's just a game. In the video [1], Girard says: I think desire usually is born out of the contemplation of someone else who is desiring and who designates to you the object he is desiring as desirable. Sorry, this is barely even a half-truth. Middle schoolers are walking down the street not looking where they're going because they're staring at their smartphones, and that's where they get desire. If they grow up, they learn to think for themselves. More from the video: Peter Robinson [narrator]: Serpent, Eve and apple. Rene Girard: Serpent in the mimetic theory of desire is a symbol, an image, of the mediator. In other words, the one who directs the subject towards the bad desire. There are churches who know what they are talking about much better than most people think. Know that example is the key to bad as well as good behavior, and this is nothing but what I call mimetic desire. ... and this is why people like to make fun of French intellectuals.

Mulpze15 4y ago
>It's different in America Yes. Not sure how it makes his argument weaker. There is a weak sense of community in US sports fans, where it is well understood that sports teams are first and foremost a commercial enterprise. It is perceived differently in Europe where fans are attached to the team fo r other reasons and want to limit the commercial impact in the sport, probably for some of the reasons explained by the author.
Niklas96 4y ago
> Girard argues that we don’t develop our own desires but want what others seem to want. What's your point here? > Think about it: rituals before, during, and after the game; group singing; deep emotional involvement; the use of symbols to show that you are part of a certain group. These are all religious aspects. Every club has legendary players; heroic figures, shaped by immortal memories, admired by everyone at the club. Sorry, Niklas. I've been to Wrigley Field when the Cubs win and everyone sings "Go, Cubs, Go." It's different in America, and by the way, you're welcome to wear the visiting team's baseball cap to a game, too. We know it's just a game. I see your point. I think you have to take into account what football means for people and that is very different in Europe compared to America. In America, I would argue, it's much more about entertainment. The development in Europe is similar but it didn't use to be that way. Back in the days, these were local clubs, founded by local people who only lived for these clubs. Wright Thompson's piece explains that much better than I could: https://www.espn.com/espn/insider/insider/story/_/id/32218044/super-league-rage-ronaldo-mania-fight-soul-manchester-united https://www.espn.com/espn/insider/insider/story/_/id/3221804... > Sorry, this is barely even a half-truth. Middle schoolers are walking down the street not looking where they're going because they're staring at their smartphones, and that's where they get desire. If they grow up, they learn to think for themselves. That's very true. They stare at their smartphones, see other people and get their desires. It might be true that their beliefs system changes when they grow up and that they think for themselves more often. The tendency to desire what other people want, however, doesn't necessarily change. The desires might differ, maybe also the extent, but I don't believe that the mechanism itself evaporates.

Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago

Modern football is the same as old 60s football: Catenaccio wins you matches and trophies with the minimum effort and minimal financial expense for the board. "two lines of 5 will always be very hard to penetrate, in prehistoric times, in the middle ages and today" - Josèp Guardiola -

sk0g 4y ago
Is it? One tactical change I've realised recently is the handoff of goalscoring responsibilities to wide players. This seems driven by defenders getting really good at both organising and one on one situations. The new goalscorers are the players that cut into the space between the wide and central defenders. Regarding two lines of 5, yes it will be hard to break down. Yet if you don't attack much, you have to defend non-stop. Hard is not impossible, so the numbers start stacking up against you, unless you have _very_ good attacking players the opposition has to fear (and avoid overcommitting themselves in attack). More than anything, modern football is becoming very programmed. You can see constant triggers for presses, passes, blind switches, and rehearsed team-wide runs from simple passages of play. Coaches seem like programmers for the worst computer of them all - humans.